PDF(1556 KB)
PDF(1556 KB)
PDF(1556 KB)
食品安全虚假信息的接触和接受：感知威胁的中介作用和健康信息素养的调节作用
Food Safety Misinformation Exposure and Acceptance: The Mediating Role of Perceived Threats and the Moderating Role of Health Information Literacy
社交媒体上传播的假新闻、虚假信息和谣言已经成为一种社会现象，引起了广泛的关注。目前，与虚假信息相关的研究主要集中在政治和健康话题。考虑到食品安全虚假信息在中文社交媒体上的普遍性和其对个人以及社会的负面影响，本研究聚焦食品安全虚假信息接受及其传播机制。基于风险的社会放大理论框架，本研究假设食品安全虚假信息的接触会正向预测个人对其接受程度，并且在这一过程中，感知威胁会起到正向的中介作用，而健康信息素养会起到调节作用。通过对腾讯新闻用户发放APP内置在线调查问卷，本研究共获取22706位用户的回答，进行分析后发现：在控制人口统计学变量影响之后，食品安全虚假信息接触正向预测虚假信息接受，感知威胁在这一过程中的中介作用显著；和健康信息素养高的用户相比，虚假信息接触与感知威胁之间的关系对于健康信息素养低的人来说更强。本研究得出的结论有利于进一步理解虚假信息的传播方式，以及致使其形成的社会心理动因，并为相应的干预实践提供指导。
The prevalence of fake news, misinformation, and rumors on social media has grown into a social phenomenon and raised concerns widely. Misinformation-related studies have mostly focused on topics such as politics and health. The current study focused on food safety misinformation due to its prevalence on Chinese social media and the potential negative consequences it may have on individuals. Based on the social amplification of risk framework, this study examined how exposure to food safety misinformation may contribute to the more or less acceptance of misinformation via perceived threats. Furthermore, we examined whether health information literacy may help individuals to reduce the influences of misinformation exposure to misinformation acceptance. An online survey was conducted in collaboration with Tencent News. The online questionnaire was randomly sent to users of Tencent News Mobile APP and a total number of 22,706 users participated in the survey. After controlling for demographic variables, food safety misinformation exposure positively predicted misinformation acceptance directly and through evoking perceived threats to food safety issues. This study also provided empirical support that health information literacy can help individuals to guard against the potential negative effects of misinformation exposure. Practically, the results of the current study can also inform health practitioners and laypersons with ways to guard against the negative consequences of misinformation.
虚假信息 / 食品安全 / 感知威胁 / 健康信息素养 / 风险的社会放大理论框架
misinformation / food safety / perceived threats / health information literacy / social amplification of risk framework
| [1] |
陈慧(2021). 食品安全谣言精准治理的突出问题与实现路径. 《乳业科学与技术》,(6),63-68.
|
| [2] |
陈经超, 黄晨阳(2020). “自我取向”还是“家人取向”?基于中国情境的大学生流感疫苗接种健康传播策略效果研究. 《国际新闻界》,(6),98-113.
|
| [3] |
陈雅赛(2020). 重大突发疫情谣言传播与受众接触研究. 《上海师范大学学报:哲学社会科学版》,(6),100-111.
|
| [4] |
楚亚杰(2020). 人们为何相信不实信息:科学传播视角下的认知偏差与信息鉴别力研究. 《新闻大学》,(11),66-82+127.
|
| [5] |
冯强, 马志浩(2019). 网络谣言的传播效果与社会阶层差异——以网络食品谣言为分析对象. 《新闻与传播评论》,(4),28-41.
|
| [6] |
国家卫生计生委.(2015). 关于印发《中国公民健康素养——基本知识与技能(2015年版)》的通知. 检索于http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/s3581/201601/e02729e6565a47fea0487a212612705b.shtml.
|
| [7] |
居梦菲, 叶中华(2018). 网络食品安全谣言治理研究. 《电子政务》,(9),66-76.
|
| [8] |
匡文波, 武晓立(2021). 重大公共卫生事件中网络谣言传播模型构建与信息治理——基于对新型冠状病毒肺炎的谣言分析. 《现代传播》,(10),126-134+155.
|
| [9] |
赖胜强, 唐雪梅(2017). 基于免疫系统理论的网络谣言治理研究. 《现代情报》,(12),30-34.
|
| [10] |
刘海龙, 于瀛 (2021). 概念的政治与概念的连接:谣言、传言、误导信息、虚假信息与假新闻的概念的重构. 《新闻界》,(12),23-40.
|
| [11] |
刘鸣筝, 孔泽鸣 (2017). 媒介素养视阈下公众谣言辨别能力及其影响因素的实证研究. 《新闻大学》,(4),102-109+151.
|
| [12] |
欧阳海燕(2011). 2011中国人最感担忧五大安全问题. 《小康》,(7),50-54.
|
| [13] |
汤景泰, 陈秋怡, 徐铭亮(2021). 情感共同体与协同行动:香港“修例风波”中虚假信息的动员机制. 《新闻与传播研究》,(8),58-76+127.
|
| [14] |
汤景泰, 巫惠娟(2016). 风险表征与放大路径:论社交媒体语境中健康风险的社会放大. 《现代传播》,(12),15-20.
|
| [15] |
唐雪梅, 赖胜强(2020). 网络辟谣信息如何影响受众的感知可信度——信息介入度的调节效应. 《国际新闻界》,(8),27-48.
|
| [16] |
王灿发(2010). 突发公共事件的谣言传播模式建构及消解. 《现代传播》,(6),45-48.
|
| [17] |
王倩, 于风(2017). 奥尔波特和波斯特曼谣言传播公式的改进及其验证:基于东北虎致游客伤亡事件的新浪微博谣言分析. 《国际新闻界》,(11),47-67.
|
| [18] |
吴建, 马超(2015). 谣言传播公式溯源、修正与发展. 《新闻界》,(13),20-23.
|
| [19] |
杨丹(2016). 网络虚假信息传播特点及治理——基于2016年上半年的大数据分析. 《新闻记者》,(8),38-43.
|
| [20] |
曾繁旭, 戴佳, 王宇琦(2015). 技术风险VS感知风险:传播过程与风险社会放大. 《现代传播》,(3),40-46.
|
| [21] |
张振宇, 喻发胜, 王然(2019). 讽刺画,预警器和烟幕弹——对国内假新闻研究的反思与重构(1980-2018). 《国际新闻界》,(11), 156-174.
|
| [22] |
张志安, 冉桢 (2020). “风险的社会放大”视角下危机事件的风险沟通研究——以新冠疫情中的政府新闻发布为例. 《新闻界》,(6),12-19.
|
| [23] |
周高琴(2021). 突发事件中恐慌性谣言网络传播的影响因素及治理启示——基于2015-2019年间15起典型案例的扎更研究. 《电子政务》,(8),94-104.
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
Rumor discourse has been conceptualized as an attempt to reduce anxiety and uncertainty via a process of social sensemaking. Fourteen rumors transmitted on various Internet discussion groups were observed and content analyzed over the life of each rumor. With this (previously unavailable) more ecologically robust methodology, the intertwined threads of sensemaking and the gaining of interpretive control are clearly evident in the tapestry of rumor discourse. We propose a categorization of statements (the Rumor Interaction Analysis System) and find differences between dread rumors and wish rumors in anxiety-related content categories. Cluster analysis of these statements reveals a typology of voices (“communicative postures”) exhibiting sensemaking activities of the rumor discussion group, such as hypothesizing, skeptical critique, directing of activities to gain information, and presentation of evidence. These findings enrich our understanding of the long-implicated sensemaking function of rumor by clarifying the elements of communication that operate in rumor's social context.
|
| [27] |
There is a need to investigate which health information sources are used and trusted by people with limited health literacy to help identify strategies for addressing knowledge gaps that can contribute to preventable illness. We examined whether health literacy was associated with people's use of and trust in a range of potential health information sources. Six hundred participants from a GfK Internet survey panel completed an online survey. We assessed health literacy using the Newest Vital Sign, the sources participants used to get health information, and the extent to which participants trusted health information from these sources. We performed multivariable regressions, controlling for demographic characteristics. Lower health literacy was associated with lower odds of using medical websites for health information and with higher odds of using television, social media, and blogs or celebrity webpages. People with lower health literacy were less likely to trust health information from specialist doctors and dentists, but more likely to trust television, social media, blogs/celebrity webpages, friends, and pharmaceutical companies. People with limited health literacy had higher rates of using and trusting sources such as social media and blogs, which might contain lower quality health information compared to information from healthcare professionals. Thus, it might be necessary to enhance the public's ability to evaluate the quality of health information sources. The results of this study could be used to improve the reach of high-quality health information among people with limited health literacy and thereby increase the effectiveness of health communication programs and campaigns.
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
The spread of science misinformation harms efforts to mitigate threats like climate change or coronavirus. Construal-level theory suggests that mediated messages can prime psychological proximity to threats, having consequences for behavior. Via two MTurk experiments, I tested a serial mediation process model predicting misinformation sharing from lexical concreteness, through psychological proximity and perceived threat. In Study 1, concrete misinformation primed psychological proximity which, in turn, increased perceived threat. Perceived threat then increased the likelihood that misinformation would be shared. Source credibility was also shown to positively influence misinformation sharing. Study 2 advanced this by showing this process was moderated by subjective knowledge. Specifically, the effect of perceived threat on misinformation sharing was stronger for those with higher subjective knowledge. Furthermore, the indirect effect of lexical concreteness on misinformation sharing was stronger for those with higher subjective knowledge. Results and limitations are discussed within the lens of construal-level theory and science communication.
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
Merriam-Webster. Misinformation. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation
|
| [43] |
During the Covid-19 pandemic fake news has been circulating impacting on the general population’s opinion about a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2. Health literacy measures the capacity of navigating health information.
|
| [44] |
Electronic health tools provide little value if the intended users lack the skills to effectively engage them. With nearly half the adult population in the United States and Canada having literacy levels below what is needed to fully engage in an information-rich society, the implications for using information technology to promote health and aid in health care, or for eHealth, are considerable. Engaging with eHealth requires a skill set, or literacy, of its own. The concept of eHealth literacy is introduced and defined as the ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem. In this paper, a model of eHealth literacy is introduced, comprised of multiple literacy types, including an outline of a set of fundamental skills consumers require to derive direct benefits from eHealth. A profile of each literacy type with examples of the problems patient-clients might present is provided along with a resource list to aid health practitioners in supporting literacy improvement with their patient-clients across each domain. Facets of the model are illustrated through a set of clinical cases to demonstrate how health practitioners can address eHealth literacy issues in clinical or public health practice. Potential future applications of the model are discussed.
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
This study explores the roles of perceived message importance, health anxiety, and health literacy in the relationship between message factors (message label and message valence) and behavioral intentions for rumor verification and sharing. 660 Twitter users responded to unverified information regarding the influenza vaccine. A 3 (label: none vs. news vs. rumor) × 2 (valence: positive vs. negative) online semi-experiment, with a survey to measure health anxiety and health literacy, showed the following results: First, perceived message importance mediated the relationship between message factors and behavioral intentions: only in the condition of the negative message, participants considered a news-labeled message more important than a rumor-labeled or a no-label message. Perceived message importance was associated with intentions to verify and share the message. Second, health anxiety interacted with perceived message importance only when predicting an intention to share the message. Last, healthy literacy interacted with perceived message importance when predicting intentions to both verify and share the message. The results will provide implications for health communication research and practices, especially on managing and controlling rumor dissemination on social media.
|
| [48] |
We synthesize a burgeoning literature investigating why people believe and share false or highly misleading news online. Contrary to a common narrative whereby politics drives susceptibility to fake news, people are 'better' at discerning truth from falsehood (despite greater overall belief) when evaluating politically concordant news. Instead, poor truth discernment is associated with lack of careful reasoning and relevant knowledge, and the use of heuristics such as familiarity. Furthermore, there is a substantial disconnect between what people believe and what they share on social media. This dissociation is largely driven by inattention, more so than by purposeful sharing of misinformation. Thus, interventions can successfully nudge social media users to focus more on accuracy. Crowdsourced veracity ratings can also be leveraged to improve social media ranking algorithms.Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
For two decades, the extended parallel process model (EPPM; Witte, 1992 ) has been one of the most widely used theoretical frameworks in health risk communication. The model has gained much popularity because it recognizes that, ironically, preceding fear appeal models do not incorporate the concept of fear as a legitimate and central part of them. As a remedy to this situation, the EPPM aims at "putting the fear back into fear appeals" ( Witte, 1992, p. 330). Despite this attempt, however, this article argues that the EPPM still does not fully capture the essence of fear as an emotion. Specifically, drawing upon Lazarus's (1991 ) cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and the concept of dispositional coping style ( Miller, 1995 ), this article seeks to further extend the EPPM. The revised EPPM incorporates a more comprehensive perspective on risk perceptions as a construct involving both cognitive and affective aspects (i.e., fear and anxiety) and integrates the concept of monitoring and blunting coping style as a moderator of further information seeking regarding a given risk topic.
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
Statista (2015). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/467097/china-major-public-concerns/.
|
| [56] |
Statista (2022a). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1272675/china-health-and-wellness-concerns-changes/.
|
| [57] |
Statista (2022b). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/910787/china-monthly-active-users-on-leading-news-apps/.
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
Despite concerns about misinformation across social media platforms, little attention has been paid to how to correct misinformation on visual platforms like Instagram. This study uses an experimental design on a national sample to test two features of user-based correction strategies on Instagram for a divisive issue on which misinformation abounds: the issue of climate change. First, we unite the inoculation and correction literature to test the efficacy of prebunking corrections that come before exposure to the misinformation versus debunking strategies that occur after exposure. Second, we compare fact-focused corrections that provide accurate information to rebut the misinformation against logic-focused corrections that highlight the rhetorical flaw underpinning the misinformation. Our findings suggest that these strategies intersect to reduce misperceptions. Logic-focused corrections effectively reduce misperceptions regardless of their placement before or after the misinformation, and appear to function in part by reducing perceptions of the credibility of the misinformation post. Fact-focused corrections only reduce misperceptions when they occur after the misinformation, but are seen as more credible than logic-focused corrections. We discuss the implications of our findings for understanding the theoretical mechanism by which correction can occur and the practical guidelines to best correct misinformation in visual social media spaces.
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
\n A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the extent of continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction and the theoretical explanations of this phenomenon. Aggregation of results from 32 studies (\n N\n = 6,527) revealed that, on average, correction does not entirely eliminate the effect of misinformation (\n r\n = –.05,\n p\n =.045). Corrective messages were found to be more successful when they are coherent, consistent with the audience’s worldview, and delivered by the source of the misinformation itself. Corrections are less effective if the misinformation was attributed to a credible source, the misinformation has been repeated multiple times prior to correction, or when there was a time lag between the delivery of the misinformation and the correction. These findings are consistent with predictions based on theories of mental models and offer concrete recommendations for practitioners.\n
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
World Health Organization. (2021). Health promotion glossary of terms 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization.
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
1. 第八届中国食品安全论坛 。检索于
2. 2019年网络谣言治理报告 。检索于
3. 辟谣：网传女子吃了一个月低钠盐险丢命，低钠盐还能吃吗?检索于
4. 专家辟谣：海南香蕉染病不可信 。检索于
感谢腾讯新闻较真平台对问卷发放和收集提供支持。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
